JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri. Rachit Sondhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "(i) That by means of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari the judgment and order dated 15-03-1966 passed by A.C.O. Judgment and order dated 07-09-2017 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Unnao and judgment and order dated 28-08-2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao contained in Annexures No.1, 5 and 7 to the writ petition." 3. The order dated 15.03.1966 was passed based upon the compromise between co-tenure holders by the respondent No. 3-Additional Consolidation Officer, Unnao (in short "A.C.O.") in Case No. 366. 4. Prima facie, it appears from the record, that the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners were party to the proceedings before the respondent No. 3/A.C.O. 5. Challenging the impugned order dated 15.03.1966 passed in Case No. 366 by respondent No.3/A.C.O., the petitioners and private respondent Nos. 8 to 12 preferred an appeal, Registered as Appeal No. 249/16-17, Computerized Case No.20151069012 (Mastram & Others v. Anil & Others) under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") impleading respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as respondents. 6. The aforesaid appeal was filed after delay of about 48 years and 10 months and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.2-Settlment Officer of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "S.O.C.") vide order dated 07.09.2017 after observing that the delay of 48 years and 10 months has not been explained properly. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.09.2017 reads as under:- 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2017, petitioners preferred the Revision No. 90/2023, Computerized Case No. 2017531069000289 (Rampratap & Others v. Anil & Others). This revision was dismissed by the respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao (in short "D.D.C.") vide order dated 28.08.2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.08.2023 reads as under:- 8. Impeaching the order(s) impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners says that the delay was properly explained and as such the impugned order(s) are liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the respondent No.2/S.O.C. to hear the appeal on merits. 9. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.08.2023 reads as under:- 8. Impeaching the order(s) impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners says that the delay was properly explained and as such the impugned order(s) are liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the respondent No.2/S.O.C. to hear the appeal on merits. 9. Opposing the main prayer sought in the present petition, learned counsel for the State says that the delay of 48 years and 10 months has not been explained properly and as such, interference of this Court in the impugned order(s) is not required. Prayer is to dismiss the petition. 10. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the order(s) impugned. 11. For coming to the conclusion as to whether the delay has been explained, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the contents of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the Supplementary affidavit dated 01.11.2023 filed before this Court today, which is taken on record. 11. For coming to the conclusion as to whether the delay has been explained, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the contents of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the Supplementary affidavit dated 01.11.2023 filed before this Court today, which is taken on record. The relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced hereinunder:- " eSa 'kiFkh jke izrki iq= fctbZ fuoklh uks[ksyky [ksMk etjs egjkaok ijxuk vlksgk rglhy iqjok ftyk mUuko 'kiFkiwoZd fuEufyf[kr c;ku djrk gwW%& /kkjk1%& ;g fd 'kiFkh eqdnes dk iSjksdkj gS rFkk eqdnes ls HkyhHkakfr okfdQ gSA /kkjk2%& ;g fd lEkLr vihyk.Vl o fjLikUMsUVl fookfnr Hkwfe ds 1@2 Hkkx ij dkfct gSA /kkjk3%& ;g fd foi{khx.kksa us tc ;g dguk 'kq# fd;k fd esjs yksxksa ds uke vf/kd Hkwfe gS rFkk dCtk djus dh dksf'k'k dh rc 'kiFkh o mlds lg[kkrsnkj rglhy iqjok x, vkSj ubZ [krkSuh mijksDr [kkrks dh yh rc ;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k fd [kkrk dks cVokjk xyr fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk4%& ;g fd 'kiFkh us vfHkys[kksa dk eqvkbuk djk;k rc ekyqe gqvk fd 1966 ls lgk;d pdCkUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk xyr cVokjk fd;k x;kA /kkjk5%& ;g fd 'kiFkh us rqjUr lu 1371 ls 1373 Q0 dh [krkSuh dh udy yh ftlesa lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk cVokjk fy[kk gSA /kkjk6%& ;g fd 'kiFkh mlh [krkSuh vk/kkj ij vihy Jheku th ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj jgk gSA /kkjk7%& ;g fd 'kiFkh us fnukad 05-02-14 dks cLrk iVokjh [krkSuh dh udy yhA pwafd pdcUnh U;k;ky;ksa esa gM+rky py jgh Fkh blfy, vihy ugha nkf[ky dj ldkA /kkjk8%& ;g fd vkt iqu% 'kiFkh dpsgjh vk;k ysfdu ekyqe gqvk fd gM+rky pkyw gS ysfdu 'kiFkh Loa; gLrk{kj djds vihy nkf[ky dj jgk gSA /kkjk9%& ;g fd izkFkhZ dh nsjh tkucw>dj ugh gS cfYd mijksDr dkj.ko'k gS tks dkfcy ekQh gSA " 12. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit indicates that the affidavit is completely vague as in the same specific date of knowledge of the order passed in the year 1966 has not been mentioned nor therein it has been indicated as to why the appeal was filed in February, 2015 after inspecting the relevant records on 05.02.2014 nor therein it has been indicated that as to why the predecessor(s)-in-interest have not approached the appellate authority. The facts related to knowledge of predecessor(s)-in-interest about the order of respondent No.3/A.C.O. has also not been indicated. Further, no ducment is placed on record to show that since 1966 till filing the application for condonation of delay the appellants were in possession of the property in issue. 13. Upon due consideration of aforesaid facts of the case as also the contents of the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as also observations made by the respondent No.2/S.O.C. and respondent No.1/D.D.C. in the impugned order(s), quoted above, this Court finds no force in the present petition. It is accordingly dismissed.